Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00305)

Nov 13 2002

Dear Gerry:

I can only offer that which I think I have learned from Theosophy, and
from there we compare notes. Also below, I try to make clear how I
approach the matter -- so it could be that I am wrong in this
approach. It needs to be tested, weighed and improved on I am sure.
But I can only say this : I have used it with success (to myself) for
a number of years.

As to understanding the S D . I imagine that depending on our motive
for studying it, it responds and provides us with information
according to how we search. This make the response selective since
often, I have noticed I pass over or don't register items of
information for which I am not specifically looking. And, later,
rereading again that area I suddenly find I omitted to record (in
memory) some important point,

I find the S D has many aspects, and to study it requires many
readings and years of diligent search. It is not something one
accepts. It has to be cultivated and many times.

Is this a fault of Manas or a lack of attention?

I would say we all approach the S D from our point o view as Embodied
Minds with our own limitations. But how do we discover we are
self-limited? I, the Mind-being do this exercise.

I recognize I stand mid-way between SPIRIT and MATTER. I am
independent and free and can exercise my own choice. ( Of course I
agree that I will also bear the consequences of whatever I choose to
do or not to do. But not everyone is prepared to admit
responsibility, or to shoulder such a heavy burden. Their attempt to
act selfishly and then evade the consequences in a cooperative
universe cause all the various kinds of suffering and sorrow. This
sounds judgmental. But it is not so intended. it is merely to state
a fact, as I see it. -- and I could be quite wrong in this.

I have to "step away" from my parameters, and ask "What if ...."
Next I try to take all the information I have so far gathered about
the 7 principles and their potentials and qualities and apply the (if
possible) to the task selected. But who or what is the "I" that does
this questioning, selecting and observing from several view-points?

The clue for me was in the old verse: "The One Consciousness pierces
up and down through all the states and planes of Being, and serves to
uphold the memory... of each state's experience."

So what and where does the " One consciousness" come from? Is this a
true statement ? I got this from the NOTES ON THE BHAGAVAD GITA (
Chapter 3, Judge, pp. 98-100 in my book).

"The meaning here ( to strengthen himself by Himself ) is that he is
to rely upon the One Consciousness, which, as differentiated in a man
is his Higher SELF. ( Atma ). By means of this he is to strengthen
the lower, or that which his accustomed to call "myself."

[I gather that the view is there is a UNIVERSAL ONE CONSCIOUSNESS. It
pervades the Universe, and is unimpeded. In man, it is the highest
principle: Atma ( the Higher SELF). It is the Observer -- ""the one
consciousness of each person is the Witness or Spectator of the
actions and experiences of every state we are in or pass through."

Well I hope this may help.

Best wishes,

Dallas

====================

-----Original Message-----
From: gschueler
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:27 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Theosophical Fundamentalism


Dallas, I can't offer "proof" for this, but Blavatsky's SD simply
cannot be
understood by manas -- there are too many unanswerable questions.
Using
intellectual knowledge and taking the SD at face value, it is a good
story
that hangs together fairly well, but begs the questions of Why? and
How? for
which there simply are no logical answers unless we assume the three
propositions.

If this were not the case, then the whole world would be
convinced of its authenticity by now and everyone would be
Theosophists. But
this hasn't happened.


NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO THINK. D.


The world is ignoring the SD, and no one except a few
Theosophists believes it to be an authentic universe model. The reason
is that
most people find no difference between the SD and the Bible or Koran
etc etc.
In order to accept the SD, one first must accept the three
propositions upon
which it is based.


<<<Synthesis gather all factors together and examines their
cooperative
relationships. Analysis discusses and speculates on their differences.
Both systems are
needed. They are polar opposites.>>>

I don't know about "polar opposities" but they are certainly two ways
that
manas looks at the SD intellectually and tries to digest it. But what
happens
when the SD is investigated or analyzed by buddhi instead of manas?
And isn't
buddhi a far better "tool" to use than manas?


WE USE BUDDHI As WISDOM and I find it agrees with the S D . D


<<<They are the tools of the active mind of man which seeks to
understand
things as they are and as they might become.>>>

How far, do you suppose, has man's "active mind" come over the
centuries in
understanding "things as they are?" Well, it does understand the
physical
plane pretty well, and we have placed men on the moon and can
communicate 24-7
with people all over the world etc etc. So far the evolution of manas
has
allowed us to "progress" in the direction of technology. But do we
understand
maya? Does our "active mind" allow us to understand atma-buddhi? Can
it even
conceptualize the non-dual Monad?



I WOULD CALL THE "MANAS' you write of LOWER MANAS (In you and in me).
We cannot avoid using it. It is the curious one that investigates and
challenges.	D




It is very unfortunate that so few Theosophists understand Blavatsky's
globes
and planes model. If they did, they would realize that manas is
restricted to
one and only one plane, the mental plane. Information from the other
six
planes comes to manas filtered and distorted.

Jerry S.